Proposed conversion into nine apartments, including new stair tower.

Proposed conversion into nine apartments, including new stair tower

The Senior Planning Officer reported the following:

• Comment had been received from the Council’s Public Rights of Way Manager stating that the adjacent footpath, alongside the western side of the application site was a public footpath. (ZE27). The letter stated that the proposed development did not impact on the use and enjoyment of the public footpath itself apart from when people temporarily attempt to manoeuvre furniture through the proposed gate into the site. Access for emergency is outside of the Council’s Public Rights of Way remit.

• The Council’s Transportation Manager had also forwarded additional information in consideration of access concerns raised. The response stated that footpath number ZE27 was well over 2.0 metres wide, apart from a pinch point near the northern end of the chapel, which measured from the map as 1.75 metres. Harp Yard was adopted. The proposed development was considered acceptable and had the support of the Council’s Transportation Manager.

• The Council’s Conservation Manager had commented further, stating that demolition of walls on site could not be done without listed building consent. The response stated that the application preserved a building at risk. It did not destroy any interior features, as these were already lost. Proposed openings were generally in existing openings or governed by the pattern of openings on the elevations.

• The only internal historic feature was a ceiling rose which was subject to a condition to be preserved.

• Additional information had also been received from the Council’s Property Services Manager stating that the site was an expensive site to develop and that some form of use for the site was to be welcomed, as it had remained empty for a long time.

• A letter of comment had also been received from Mr. D. A. Clarke raising concerns about the proposed roof structure and the possibility of a high level of asbestos within the roof space.

• The Senior Planning Officer commented that this was a very difficult and constrained site with a building generally in poor condition. Some sensible compromises were acceptable in getting use of the building, which had a history of compulsory purchase by the Council owing to its poor condition given the fact it was a listed building at risk. This development proposal may well be the building’s last chance.

• The Council’s Conservation Team and Officer’s of the Authority had resisted proposals to accommodate residential accommodation in the roof space. The issue as raised by Mr. Clarke was an issue for the Council’s Environmental Health Team from which advice with regards to its removal must be obtained under the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006. It was therefore recommended that a note be attached to any subsequent approval notice issued reminding the developers of their obligations should members be mindful to approve the application.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr Rippon spoke on behalf of Kington Town Council, Dr Fforde spoke in objection to the application and Mr Hard, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support.

The Local Ward Member, Councillor TM James commented that there appeared to have been very little public consultation over the proposed development. He added that the site had significant architectural value and felt that Members would benefit from a site inspection.

RESOLVED

                 (i)            That consideration of the application be deferred for a site inspection for the following reasons:

·         the character or appearance of the development itself is a fundamental planning consideration;

·         a judgement is required on visual impact;

·         the setting and surroundings are fundamental to the determination or to the conditions being considered.

(ii)        That further community consultation takes place before the application is considered